Realism Invictus

The discussion started with the fact that being less-efficient worker was exploitable and exploited, and how to avoid that. So in your analogy, we're trying to change a flat tire on one of the existing wheels.
could you please direct me to original post or explain the problem in a few words? Cause I've been riding on a flat tire for half a year and didn't notice :) I of course don't claim to be a pro-player to instantly see all problems, but still.

What I did notice, though, that AI never uses federation civic especially in early game. Its strange to have 12 empires in the bottom right around 1000BC

EDIT.
Nevermind, I found it. Walter it seems you're overthinking.
A person who deliberately stops a slave 1 turn before making normal worker complete improvement is a person who will open World edit and add units or check resources or whatever else. Technically you can exploit that mechanic but its clear that its akin to a cheating and trying to break a working system in order to eliminate probability of cheating that I don't know, a fraction of players indulges into, is simply not worth it imo.
My point is, I respect your concern, but in an attempt to eliminate 1 of 100 ways of unfair playing, sacrificing a working mechanic is not the best path.
Maybe other players should be asked, do they use that strange exploit and do they feel the change is necessary.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: [Y]
You have very little faith in me :). I evaluated the possible solutions, and I indeed saw no satisfactory ones that would eliminate the exploit. I think I'll do the opposite and devalue it instead - I'll revert them to slow work speed and reduce the death chance on completion to 50% or maybe even less. Anyone trying to exploit around that is indeed welcome if they really need it.

Probably the last slavery tweak I'm considering, and I'd like some input on for this version, is what to do with the slaves once one switches out of slavery. Currently they convert to workers with 50% chance, which is both too generous from a gameplay perspective (can result in a lot of free workers, as slaves can be hoarded by the dozen when you know you're switching out) and not very realistic ("I'm a free man now, I guess I'll just continue working on the same plantation"). I'm currently considering maybe a small sum of gold per slave instead, as they join the economy as earners and consumers (and taxpayers).
 
You have very little faith in me :). I evaluated the possible solutions, and I indeed saw no satisfactory ones that would eliminate the exploit. I think I'll do the opposite and devalue it instead - I'll revert them to slow work speed and reduce the death chance on completion to 50% or maybe even less. Anyone trying to exploit around that is indeed welcome if they really need it.

Probably the last slavery tweak I'm considering, and I'd like some input on for this version, is what to do with the slaves once one switches out of slavery. Currently they convert to workers with 50% chance, which is both too generous from a gameplay perspective (can result in a lot of free workers, as slaves can be hoarded by the dozen when you know you're switching out) and not very realistic ("I'm a free man now, I guess I'll just continue working on the same plantation"). I'm currently considering maybe a small sum of gold per slave instead, as they join the economy as earners and consumers (and taxpayers).
Not really, just don't want you to be bothered by lesser problems. What was the chance of death upon completion in last stable version? It felt ok for me although I rarely used slaves, (though often went serfdom).

Honestly both solutions look alright to me, so its either reduce rate to 20% or small monetary compensation.

Btw more of a graphics question. Is there a way to edit combat zoom in game files to zoom in a bit more? Or is it hardcoded? I have to admit I am unit model junkie so I want battles to be zoomed in 1,5x more :)
 
Btw more of a graphics question. Is there a way to edit combat zoom in game files to zoom in a bit more? Or is it hardcoded? I have to admit I am unit model junkie so I want battles to be zoomed in 1,5x more :)
There absolutely is, CAMERA_BATTLE_ZOOM_IN_DISTANCE in GlobalDefines. The only tricky bit is that the mod has GlobalDefinesAlt.xml which only has the entries that are changed compared to vanilla, so you'll need to go to stock BtS GlobalDefines.xml, copy it over to GlobalDefinesAlt.xml and then tweak it to your heart's delight.
 
- The road building tech is missing a translation for its quote (no text is displayed)
- Using the common war to get a free "Open Borders" treaty to get techs is somewhat exploitable.
- The text in the city screen indicating if a resource gives +1/-1 epidemic is always colored red if it follows an information about religious incompatibility.
- One thing I noticed: Rome only has leaders from the Imperial era or later, except Caesar, but by that time the Roman Republic was a shadow of its former self and Caesar was largely responsible for its end. Having a leader from the Roman Republic times would be good. What about having someone like Lucius Papirius Cursor or Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus? I know Rome already has more leaders than other civs but I think it would still be justified...
- Does anyone ever use Local Crafts? While it should be inferior to the later options converting hammers at a 50% rate, a 20% conversion rate is abysmal and useless seem an appropriate qualifier for it, especially because antiquity is much more demanding in hammers than gold/science compared to later periods. Boosting the conversion rate to 30% might keep it weak, but at least then it could be useful in some limited situations.

Maybe. Generally speaking, this is a part of the moving "off the land" and into the cities to work as craftsmen. Resource improvements should be less valuable in that era for their yields and more for the resources they provide to feed the factories.
With the way the game works, for many resources that are not directly used by transformer buildings, having multiples gives nothing except trading options.

I'm playing as the French right now, and I've concluded that the "cultivate grapes" option is useful if lacking any natural source of wine or if needing two wines to get alcohol (this gives flexibility), but that the tiles with grapes are otherwise quite bad. Just having a normal farm on the chernozem tile is providing +4F (no serfdom) or +5F+1G (serfdom and manor), compared with +3F+3G +1 local happiness with the wine and the special improvement. For such a small difference, why not take the extra food and then get a proper food boosting crop in the chernozem later on? Once you can get wheat planted, the wine is completely outclassed even with a civ-specific improvement that makes it more valuable.

What I did notice, though, that AI never uses federation civic especially in early game. Its strange to have 12 empires in the bottom right around 1000BC
I think the federation civic is outright bad.

Advantages over autocracy:
- Some maintenance money savings based on city distance (underwhelming on large maps where number of cities hits much sooner, more meaningful but not great on smaller maps)
- No base unhappiness
- 1 free unit (that might as well be a joke)
- No upkeep, which is a good boost in the late game, but in the classical era civics upkeep is rather low. And iirc AIs get a discount on civics upkeep making this even weaker for them.

Disadvantages:
- No hapiness from barracks, walls, imperial cult statue - overall much worse on the happiness front
- Much slower military production speed (25% penalty and lacking the 10% bonus of autocracy)
- Lacking the -5 separatism modifier
- Unlocked much later in the tech tree, requiring either to stay much longer in tribal union (losing a lot of benefits) or to get a second revolution. Also by that time, most cities will probably already have some of the happiness-boosting buildings linked to autocracy, so the "no base unhappiness" is in practice only helpful with newly founded cities or some captured cities, core cities will suffer.

You have very little faith in me :). I evaluated the possible solutions, and I indeed saw no satisfactory ones that would eliminate the exploit. I think I'll do the opposite and devalue it instead - I'll revert them to slow work speed and reduce the death chance on completion to 50% or maybe even less. Anyone trying to exploit around that is indeed welcome if they really need it.
I suggest removing the possibility of death on completion entirely. I'm not sure if the efficiency at 50% is sufficiently low or not, but for every 2 slaves you use instead of a normal worker, you are paying around 1gpt more in maintenance (dependent on difficulty level, inflation) to get the same output. I very much doubt that slaves at 40% efficiency would be overpowerd as workers even if you got dozens of them because of the budget drain they would represent.

Slaves can only rush buildings, not units, but with an efficiency of 20% you'd be saving hammers in addition to upkeep costs by having them be used to rush a building and then making a normal worker.. This shows that slaves at 20% efficiency would be near useless as workers even without death on completion, and that a reasonable efficiency where slave workers that don't die on completion and are neither useless nor overpowered must be significantly higher.

I haven't done the math on the RoI for a worker and the "gpt value" of a worker improving terrain, but while workers are very important, having an army of slave workers is not going to be an outright dominant strategy. There is also an opportunity cost of using the 30 hammers building boost later rather than sooner, although it's generally moderate.

Probably the last slavery tweak I'm considering, and I'd like some input on for this version, is what to do with the slaves once one switches out of slavery. Currently they convert to workers with 50% chance, which is both too generous from a gameplay perspective (can result in a lot of free workers, as slaves can be hoarded by the dozen when you know you're switching out) and not very realistic ("I'm a free man now, I guess I'll just continue working on the same plantation"). I'm currently considering maybe a small sum of gold per slave instead, as they join the economy as earners and consumers (and taxpayers).
It's actually quite realistic for them to stay. Look at the Southern USA after the civil war, most former slaves actually kept working on the same plantation. I have less knowledge about the fall of the Roman Empire and the transition from Latifundias towards early feudalism, but iirc the same thing happened.

50% conversion rate to normal workers is however way too high for gameplay, I think.
 
Last edited:
Probably the last slavery tweak I'm considering, and I'd like some input on for this version, is what to do with the slaves once one switches out of slavery. Currently they convert to workers with 50% chance, which is both too generous from a gameplay perspective (can result in a lot of free workers, as slaves can be hoarded by the dozen when you know you're switching out) and not very realistic ("I'm a free man now, I guess I'll just continue working on the same plantation"). I'm currently considering maybe a small sum of gold per slave instead, as they join the economy as earners and consumers (and taxpayers).

How about giving the player a free cottage in exchange for their slaves? In real life, freed slaves either settled a homestead or migrated away. Let the player convert a tile to a cottage if they had slaves. I don't know if one cottage in the entire civ is enough or one per city that had slaves.
 
- One thing I noticed: Rome only has leaders from the Imperial era or later, except Caesar, but by that time the Roman Republic was a shadow of its former self and Caesar was largely responsible for its end. Having a leader from the Roman Republic times would be good. What about having someone like Lucius Papirius Cursor or Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus? I know Rome already has more leaders than other civs but I think it would still be justified...

This is something I noticed as well. I think it likely has to do with the fact that the dual nature of the Republican consulship is somewhat dissonant with the concept of being represented by a singular leader. I would vote Quintus Fabius Maximus as well, or possibly Scipio Aemilianus, if it's going to be considered at all. Going any earlier than the Second Punic War would feel a little bit of a stretch, since Rome hadn't significantly expanded outside of Italy prior to this, so they might come across as too backwater or obscure otherwise. The semi-legendary nature of the Roman kings might disqualify them, but to have Tarquin Superbus or a spiritual Numa Pompilius could be cool. :)

- Does anyone ever use Local Crafts? While it should be inferior to the later options converting hammers at a 50% rate, a 20% conversion rate is abysmal and useless seem an appropriate qualifier for it, especially because antiquity is much more demanding in hammers than gold/science compared to later periods. Boosting the conversion rate to 30% might keep it weak, but at least then it could be useful in some limited situations.

I think it is supposed to have basically no in-game utility outside of the very early game. I have used it very sparingly once or twice, but it was in a pre-currency overextension where I was out of money. I personally like where it is, and that it represents a poor option in absolute terms which is only sometimes useful in desperation. Making it any stronger would feel like making running wealth proper later in the tree less individually important.

Interesting post, otherwise! I generally agree with you for the most part about confederation. I would at the very least swap the bonuses from distance and number of cities, or increase them both to 50%, as -25% (while sometimes merited early in the game) is still somewhat modest, and comes with other rather punishing consequences in growth caps and unit production. I like that element and don't think that that should be relaxed (as it makes for a meaningful alternative with autocracy), but for being an expansion-oriented civic, I think it should weigh into that benefit more than it currently does.
 
I think it is supposed to have basically no in-game utility outside of the very early game. I have used it very sparingly once or twice, but it was in a pre-currency overextension where I was out of money. I personally like where it is, and that it represents a poor option in absolute terms which is only sometimes useful in desperation. Making it any stronger would feel like making running wealth proper later in the tree less individually important.
I suspect local crafts are made for AI natives in earth scenario use, not for any meaningful player or standard AI interaction.

As for Federation civic it seems it should be buffed a little, cause right now autocracy or republic are way too much more preferable alternatives.
 
Why do British Royal Marines have such weird moans when they fight? No, really, it's so fudging weird:scared:
edit: fudging? WTH is that?
 
I know high difficulties are supposed to be difficult, and I appreciate at least that the boosts allow the AI to not be a pushover, but the AI is getting so many units on so low a maintenance that to keep up in power I'm getting ruinous expenses in unit upkeep and consequently also falling behind in tech. Perhaps I misjudged the timing to switch towards towns.

The main saving grace is that the AI is utterly incompetent at using its units during war so threats of invasion succeeding are very low. But then again, if I go on the offensive and win, I'm getting strangled by number of cities maintenance costs (that's with my modmod reducing maintenance costs through government form by about a third).

I don't know if the jump from immortal to titan is that massive in term of AI boosts or if I'm also feeling some effects of the better AI from R5427, but the difference with my South China game is stark. At the start I could somewhat compete because I removed the free workers and free techs for the AI, but I'm now behind several techs compared to all AIs. The commerce potential of surrounding tiles seem also to be a determining factor for how the game will go.

In the end, so far I think I still have a good chance as at least I have a good territory for my cities and I have the option to convert hammers into science after mathematics, but I'm very dependent on keeping open borders with enough AIs. If at some point AIs start to cut me out because I'm too far behind in tech, the situation may be unrecoverable. I'm probably doing something wrong...
 
- Does anyone ever use Local Crafts? While it should be inferior to the later options converting hammers at a 50% rate, a 20% conversion rate is abysmal and useless seem an appropriate qualifier for it, especially because antiquity is much more demanding in hammers than gold/science compared to later periods. Boosting the conversion rate to 30% might keep it weak, but at least then it could be useful in some limited situations.
I use it pretty regularly in the ancient era. Sometimes because I have nothing better for the city to do, so the modest gain is welcome. Other times because I'm extended thin financially and an ancient era city with decent hammers can get you a few gold a turn through Local Crafts, which can make a difference when you need those extra few gold. I never use it for long, but I probably use it for at least a few turns in each game.
 
The main saving grace is that the AI is utterly incompetent at using its units during war so threats of invasion succeeding are very low. But then again, if I go on the offensive and win, I'm getting strangled by number of cities maintenance costs (that's with my modmod reducing maintenance costs through government form by about a third).
I never really had a feeling AI is bad in this regard (or generally, it's by far the best one in the Civ history) - surely I don't play on very high difficulties (probably like 90% of us, personally emperor is my comfy level) so it might be just a skill issue, but I've seen a lot of successful operations performed by it, from very stubborn defense to big naval invasions taking my capital by surprise.
 
- The road building tech is missing a translation for its quote (no text is displayed)
Thanks, there were actually several techs affected by that. Fixed.
- Using the common war to get a free "Open Borders" treaty to get techs is somewhat exploitable.
I wouldn't call it exploitable as much as a legitimate diplomatic tactic.
- The text in the city screen indicating if a resource gives +1/-1 epidemic is always colored red if it follows an information about religious incompatibility.
Can you provide a screenshot? I tried checking, and it isn't for me (this is a Jewish city of a Jewish civ):

1727680392781.png

I did make a note to myself to use the epidemic symbol in the tooltip, though
- One thing I noticed: Rome only has leaders from the Imperial era or later, except Caesar, but by that time the Roman Republic was a shadow of its former self and Caesar was largely responsible for its end. Having a leader from the Roman Republic times would be good. What about having someone like Lucius Papirius Cursor or Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus? I know Rome already has more leaders than other civs but I think it would still be justified...
The problem with Rome, as you correctly pointed out, is that it already has more leaders than anyone else, and I haven't even run out of all the fun emperors whom I'd include before going to other periods (Aurelian at least; Rome suspiciously lacks a good military-oriented leader, just a couple that are kinda ok). If I'd go for a republican leader, I'd probably go further into the past and do Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, though both of your choices are also fine, and both also served as dictators, making them rather eligible for a singular leader role.
- Does anyone ever use Local Crafts? While it should be inferior to the later options converting hammers at a 50% rate, a 20% conversion rate is abysmal and useless seem an appropriate qualifier for it, especially because antiquity is much more demanding in hammers than gold/science compared to later periods. Boosting the conversion rate to 30% might keep it weak, but at least then it could be useful in some limited situations.
As others indicated, this is basically a fallback for AIs, especially the natives in the World Map.
I'm playing as the French right now, and I've concluded that the "cultivate grapes" option is useful if lacking any natural source of wine or if needing two wines to get alcohol (this gives flexibility), but that the tiles with grapes are otherwise quite bad. Just having a normal farm on the chernozem tile is providing +4F (no serfdom) or +5F+1G (serfdom and manor), compared with +3F+3G +1 local happiness with the wine and the special improvement. For such a small difference, why not take the extra food and then get a proper food boosting crop in the chernozem later on? Once you can get wheat planted, the wine is completely outclassed even with a civ-specific improvement that makes it more valuable.
The "later on" in question is roughly half the game's length, but I see your point. It may well be that improvements based on one specific resource are still underpowered.
I think the federation civic is outright bad.

Advantages over autocracy:
- Some maintenance money savings based on city distance (underwhelming on large maps where number of cities hits much sooner, more meaningful but not great on smaller maps)
- No base unhappiness
- 1 free unit (that might as well be a joke)
- No upkeep, which is a good boost in the late game, but in the classical era civics upkeep is rather low. And iirc AIs get a discount on civics upkeep making this even weaker for them.

Disadvantages:
- No hapiness from barracks, walls, imperial cult statue - overall much worse on the happiness front
- Much slower military production speed (25% penalty and lacking the 10% bonus of autocracy)
- Lacking the -5 separatism modifier
- Unlocked much later in the tech tree, requiring either to stay much longer in tribal union (losing a lot of benefits) or to get a second revolution. Also by that time, most cities will probably already have some of the happiness-boosting buildings linked to autocracy, so the "no base unhappiness" is in practice only helpful with newly founded cities or some captured cities, core cities will suffer.
It is supposed to be a civic one runs when one overextended themselves in the early game. I'll probably up the number of cities maintenance reduction to emphasise that.
I suggest removing the possibility of death on completion entirely. I'm not sure if the efficiency at 50% is sufficiently low or not, but for every 2 slaves you use instead of a normal worker, you are paying around 1gpt more in maintenance (dependent on difficulty level, inflation) to get the same output. I very much doubt that slaves at 40% efficiency would be overpowerd as workers even if you got dozens of them because of the budget drain they would represent.

Slaves can only rush buildings, not units, but with an efficiency of 20% you'd be saving hammers in addition to upkeep costs by having them be used to rush a building and then making a normal worker.. This shows that slaves at 20% efficiency would be near useless as workers even without death on completion, and that a reasonable efficiency where slave workers that don't die on completion and are neither useless nor overpowered must be significantly higher.

I haven't done the math on the RoI for a worker and the "gpt value" of a worker improving terrain, but while workers are very important, having an army of slave workers is not going to be an outright dominant strategy. There is also an opportunity cost of using the 30 hammers building boost later rather than sooner, although it's generally moderate.
I left it at a meagre 25%. Enough to kill some off if they are used for improvements, not enough to try optimising around.
It's actually quite realistic for them to stay. Look at the Southern USA after the civil war, most former slaves actually kept working on the same plantation. I have less knowledge about the fall of the Roman Empire and the transition from Latifundias towards early feudalism, but iirc the same thing happened.

50% conversion rate to normal workers is however way too high for gameplay, I think.
Yeah, I reduced it to 20%. I guess turning them into workers is the best thing we can do with them anyway.
How about giving the player a free cottage in exchange for their slaves? In real life, freed slaves either settled a homestead or migrated away. Let the player convert a tile to a cottage if they had slaves. I don't know if one cottage in the entire civ is enough or one per city that had slaves.
A free cottage where? I'm not sure a player would want a lot of cottages in random places.
Why do British Royal Marines have such weird moans when they fight? No, really, it's so fudging weird:scared:
edit: fudging? WTH is that?
:lol: Oh my god, that is hilarious! I'll let you in on his little secret, he used to be a she before being accepted into royal service! (https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/female-pirates.17208/) Thanks for pointing out, I helped him finish his transitioning.
 
Yeah, I reduced it to 20%. I guess turning them into workers is the best thing we can do with them anyway.
As a thought to reduce randomness, what if instead of 20% chance to convert, it instead converted every 5th slave to a worker? Slaves 1-4 gone, slave 5 worker, slaves 6-9 gone, slave 10 worker, etc. This would require the civ in question to need a bunch of slaves and plan around it, and avoids some civs getting very lucky and others very unlucky when switching over.
 
I never really had a feeling AI is bad in this regard (or generally, it's by far the best one in the Civ history) - surely I don't play on very high difficulties (probably like 90% of us, personally emperor is my comfy level) so it might be just a skill issue, but I've seen a lot of successful operations performed by it, from very stubborn defense to big naval invasions taking my capital by surprise.
It tends to be very stubborn in city defense indeed, but it has 2 major weaknesses:
- It fears so much reducing garrison in defending cities that small stacks near enemy cities are way too safe from being attacked. Attackers are not being whittled down like they should be, so although rushing down the city can be very difficult, making a siege rarely ends up in losing a lot of attacking units before the storming of the city itself. On the other hand, the way the game works with units healing means that you may need a big numerical advantage to successfully storm, as you need to kill all the weak units before being able to finish off wounded good defenders.
- The AI won't rush a lightly defended city that has a good defensive bonus, and the AI is extremely vulnerable to whittling down of its attacking stacks.

I decided to revise my approach in that game and load a save from a few dozen turns earlier. Instead of doing the military build-up that was protecting me from war but ruining me, my core cities went all-in on science and I let my power rating drop like a stone. I got attacked by a neighbour (sensible enough) and by a distant civ (less sensible), both sent their attacking stacks with little plan for the after, both got most of their attacking units killed at very little cost for me by mostly skirmishers, both agreed to peace.

So I was doing something wrong earlier, the correct play is to look weak, get bullied, and win the wars anyway.

I wouldn't call it exploitable as much as a legitimate diplomatic tactic.
I think it's somewhat too effective in that you don't need to provide any troops at all to fight and the target civ may have a -10 relationship with your own civ, and it will still accept if you are not its worst enemy. There is a small diplomatic penalty "you attacked our friends" or "you declared war on us" to pay, but it's not much. Common wars should make open borders much easier to sign, but in some cases it's too extreme.

Can you provide a screenshot? I tried checking, and it isn't for me (this is a Jewish city of a Jewish civ):
Check the translation.
 
- Was it intentional to not change the chop bonus when a forest is removed by creating improvements such as plantations? Although now, it takes the same time to just build a plantation as chopping the forest alone, so just increasing the chop bonus wouldn't be a good idea, if it was done then the time spent to build a plantation on a forest should also change.
- Forget what I said about the AI not attacking heavily fortified cities, I had the opposite happen... +60% fortification on a hill, the AI sent most of a stack to death against my defending archers, without bothering to come with any siege equipment. I wonder if the AI classes restrictions to battering rams and catapults may have inadvertently tricked the AI into not building them correctly? In my previous games, the AI always came with siege equipment.
 
I decided to revise my approach in that game and load a save from a few dozen turns earlier. Instead of doing the military build-up that was protecting me from war but ruining me, my core cities went all-in on science and I let my power rating drop like a stone. I got attacked by a neighbour (sensible enough) and by a distant civ (less sensible), both sent their attacking stacks with little plan for the after, both got most of their attacking units killed at very little cost for me by mostly skirmishers, both agreed to peace.
From my perspective it's good that we have some relatively cheap counter for big fat stacks, otherwise we would always be instantly doomed after being outproduced and outnumbered. One thing to consider is to readjust weights, so AI produces more skirmishes/cavalry/light infantry which would probably also help them defending and actively harras our attacking stacks.
 
One thing to consider is to readjust weights, so AI produces more skirmishes/cavalry/light infantry which would probably also help them defending and actively harras our attacking stacks.
You'd think, but in my experience, the AI likes using skirmishers and cavalry to assault cities rather than harass, probably due to the first strike benefits. Used to really confuse me until I understood how critical FS is in attacking cities. More than once I took a look at a civ in mid-conquer spree against another civ, and their offensive stacks were something like 10 skirmishers and 5 light cavalry.
 
Back
Top Bottom